Why it’s critical we cover so-called “controversial” science

Facts are not controversial, but unfortunately cause controversy.

Ars Technica has never been afraid to cover so-called "controversial" issues in science and culture. Here is why we routinely cover them—and why we reject calls for us to be silent on such issues.

I put "controversial" in quotes for a reason. Many of the topics that are supposedly controversial are not really contentious at all among people who are properly informed and rely on a scientific understanding of the physical world around us. However, due to the fact that scientific literacy is sadly lacking on this great planet of ours, "controversy" emerges when individuals, groups, societies, and nations are forced to confront their nonscientific worldviews with the findings of science. Of course, skepticism is a healthy and powerful thing. But skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is not healthy, so long as you remember what the word "overwhelming" means. And facts themselves are not controversial.

Through the years I have received countless e-mails and have read hundreds of article comments imploring Ars to keep "political" stuff off the site. Such entreaties most commonly occur in relation to our scientific coverage of climate change or evolution, but also when we cover biological and anthropological matters of gender and sex. (They also come to a lesser extent when we cover the inherently political world of intellectual property, where, coincidentally, there are far fewer facts—but that's outside the scope of this editorial.)

What those petitioners do not realize is that in asking us to be silent, they require that we take a politicized stance. Intentional silence is support for the status quo, and as such, it's inherently political. Note that I'm speaking of intentional silence or avoidance, purposely not covering a topic so as not to bring light to it. Inasmuch as our editorial mission is, in part, to cover the issues relating to science and technology that are most challenging to our culture, it is unthinkable for us not to cover these issues. To reiterate, not covering them would be just as "political" as covering them.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that reporting scientific truth and endeavors can ever be a form of "trolling" or "click bait." The purpose of such reporting is to educate and inform, and in some cases, to help understand. The fact that so many misinformed (and quite often willingly misinforming) readers react negatively to such coverage only underscores the need for this kind of reporting.

Promoted Comments

For the most part I find Arstechnica's articles that could be antireligious to be written in a neutral-skeptical tone.

However, when the article could be taken to an antireligious rant, the comments usually do degenerate into something that makes me feel - as someone who is spiritual but not religious - somewhat uneasy expressing my opinion.

I was talking to a friend of mine last night who happens to be an atheist. We used to debate politics - truly debate. It was respectfully done. The only time a line was crossed, apologies were exchanged. These debates were done years ago and since then political lines have been redrawn such that my moderate shift to the left in the interim has me categorized as a raving liberal. However, last night as conversation meandered, I said something about those debates that I'm not certain I could ever say to someone here because of the tactics allowed: "Thank you for giving me the room to change."

She isn't someone I know face to face, we know each other through our online names only and we debated on forums and nowhere else. That same room is not given to people on arstechnica and it is not given to religious nor spiritual individuals on sites that assert the validity of scientific theories.

Respecting someone who is wrong is something so difficult that not many people ever master it. Running into someone who held opinions opposite of mine and was willing to respectfully discuss them with me - at times with greater maturity than I had - changed how I thought.

562 Reader Comments

I don't have a problem with that view per se. It does seem unnecessary to invoke God in evolution, just as it is unnecessary to invoke Zeus in lightning storms. It also tends to put your God in an ever smaller and smaller box as our knowledge supplants his previous dominion. But again, since that kind of view is compatible with science and is unlikely to promote any wacky laws I personally would not berate anyone for it.

That seems like a bit of a back handed reply. In any case, I never said it is necessary to 'insert' God into it. I am just explaining how it does not really clash. I also don't see it as putting God in a smaller box.

Honestly sorry of it came across that way, as I said once above, I really do try to be nice and civil in these kinds of discussions.[/quote]

As do I on the civil thing. Maybe I am too sensitive. Who knows... Ok, if I am being too sensitive I need to go scratch my ass and drink a beer. Gotta shore up my manliness I suppose. :-P

I don't buy into Scientific Dogma any more than I buy into Religious Dogma. You have to keep investigating, testing and learning. Time and time again, just as soon as we "think" we know it all, a new discovery comes along that shows us that we knew far less than we thought we knew.

I don't think you know the meaning of dogma:

Definition of DOGMA

1a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenetb : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Science is based upon facts, and testing, not dogma -- leave your ignorant feelings at the door.

I did not see any pictures of the findings, any links to any scientifically published articles about discoveries of fossils that show the development chain of vertebrae as required by evolution, just a written theory.

To quote a popular videogame character, science isn't about why, it's about why *not*.

The question is not "why did sharks evolve in the way that the fossil record shows", but "why shouldn't they have"? Is there anything in the fossil record which, according to the theory of evolution, cannot happen?

It doesn't matter whether or not fossils have been found illustrating the evolution of a certain body part. It matters whether fossils have been found which *contradict* that evolution. Missing fossils just means that the fossils haven't been found, or never formed, or were stomped on two million years ago. Missing fossils are uninteresting, and prove nothing.

Which fossils do you know of which *cannot* be explained by the theory of evolution?

It doesn't *matter* how ribs and vertebrae evolved. One at a time, a pair at a time, all at once, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they weren't created out of thin air in a single instance. They gradually evolved, in one way or another. Perhaps from a solid ribcage which gradually reduced itself to individual bones serving much the same purpose, but at a lower weight. Perhaps by gradually adding more bones above or below the existing ones, or perhaps by gradually growing a set of bones in parallel.

The theory of evolution doesn't care which of these routes were taken. It just describes the method by which the change happened: random mutations which, in each generation, proved favorable.

There should be no truth in science. Just facts that can be proven/dis-proven and subject to change as new facts come to light. Scientific truth is too close to gospel. It garners beliefs and faith. Worse than that, it garners an "us or them" mentality from any viewpoint that doesn't exactly align another's view.

That's about the the only gripe I could could make about Ars; many of its constituents which will attest that, "The science says *this* and so *this* must be categorically, unequivocally true!" And what a debacle the whole flat Earth has turned out to be. That sentiment is no different than those of the "opponents"(as described in a comment or two) who are also unwilling to budge on their stance despite the evidence presented to them.Some of the more stylized editorials only exacerbate that divide which is why I'd prefer articles to be a bit more objective than they are. (But hey, clicks pay the bills and humanity is no stranger to self-vindication by appealing to the masses right?)

Overall, I applaud Ars for its articles bringing information to the masses. Keep up the good work, and keep it coming! :-)

ID is based on faith. Science is supposed to be based on fact alone, but still currently requires some faith. As such until science has all the facts, there are going to be those that put their faith in ID or some version of ID.

What faith does science require? For what purpose?

And what "facts" is science lacking?

Did you read what I and others have pointed out about science and "facts"? Science is not a way of establishing facts. It is a way of explaining them. As such, science can never "have all the facts". And it doesn't need "faith" to do so.

I'm sorry that you don't know what science *means*, but that does not, in fact, invalidate science.

Yes I did, but science does not have all the answers, now notice I am using the word science, where did the super singularity that created the universe come from? How did life first appear on Earth? Show me pictures of fossils with 2 ribs and 1 vertebrae, 4 ribs and 2 vertebrae, etc...

You do realize, don’t you, that even if you could prove that all science was a hoax and none of it was true that this would still not prove any of the religious explanations for anything.

To prove something you need to collect evidence supporting it, not just knock down alternate explanations.

They don't get that what makes something a religion is the fact that nothing they believe is based on any sort of fact. That it's all based on faith. This is why religion and science mix bout as well as oil and water. It's also why ID is religion not science.

If one believes in an all powerful God, then there is no reason that a omnipotent being couldn't not have created a 13 byo universe 6000 years ago.

Yes, there is a reason. Namely that it would only be 6000 years old despite appearing to be 13 billion years old.

Quite aside from the offensive idea of a supreme being that for whatever inscrutable motive, chooses to lie to us, this argument begs the question. Sure, an omnipotent being could be pulling the wool over our eyes, but so what? Whether the universe was created 13 billion years ago or 3 nanoseconds ago, we have no choice but to abide by the evidence of our senses which provide a preponderance of evidence that the former argument is more correct.

This, of course, is assuming that the value in time of a "year" has not changed between the language of the original and the use of our modern English language today, despite thousands of intermediate translations.

I am not out to disprove all science, I have never said that. Scientific knowledge does have a large number of answers, but until we as humans can say how any X in the universe happened there will be those who question it. And questioning is what pushes science. So maybe some day you can prove G-d doesn't exist, but until then you do not have enough proof.

Now do I believe the universe was created 6000 years ago, no, why because I believe the scientific facts I have looked at.

I think we should agree to disagree on this.

Again, you don't understand science -- you cannot prove a negative. You have to prove that something exists (God) before science accepts it.

While that once was highly controversial, there are presently more controversial topics of far greater importance.

Should toilet paper be dispensed over the top of the roll or under the bottom of the roll?

How is this even a debate? The answer is obvious. Over the top. It is much easier to tear it apart, because the roll is resting against the top of the beam going through it.

You're not factoring in the variant height of a person sitting on the toilet. With different heights, you get different "tear" angles and tensions, effectively making it easier for taller people to rip a sheet under the bottom and shorter people to rip a sheet over the top.

I rarely post a comment, but I'll post one now: I completely support Ars Technica's fact-first policy, one that yields reports that are as enlightening as they are unfiltered, and generates discussions that are equally enlightening and unfiltered. It's why I keep coming back. Keep up the good work.

There is an anti religious slant to the some stories, which is unfortunate, as presenting ones argument or side doesn't mean we have to disparage other groups or peoples.

I'd be really interested in knowing how we're anti-religious in our coverage. Aside from dismissing things like the 6k year old earth, or the "intelligent design" pseudiscience stuff, I don't think we really get close to that material.

While I find your desire to report on such issues laudable, the fact remains that often times these "issues" are not relevant to the readership of Ars. My understanding of the foundation of this site is to report on tech related issues; not politics, not evolution, not religion, not food, not romance, not cute winter fashions.

I ask not that you "silence" yourselves, but that you only report on issues that I'm interested in and on issues where I think you have some expertise. While the staff may have an opinion on these "controversial" matters, I'm not particularly interested in them. There are many other sites for such discussions.

I visit Ars and pay for a subscription because I value the reporting of its staff on matters of tech and related issues. I have no interest in reading about any other issues, controversial or not, on this particular site. In fact, I'd greatly prefer any time and energy devoted to such issues be used to cover tech. As a paying customer, I think I have some right to voice my opinion here. I haven't noticed too many instances of these types of articles popping up, but if I notice these at a significant level, I may drop my subscription. There are several other tech sites that seem to be able to cover tech with a minimum of political, religious, or other outside subject matter.

Thanks!

So... you realize that the coverage in question here is in the *science* section, right? And not random diatribes about "why x is dumb", but covering studies and news stories?

I am not out to disprove all science, I have never said that. Scientific knowledge does have a large number of answers, but until we as humans can say how any X in the universe happened there will be those who question it. And questioning is what pushes science. So maybe some day you can prove G-d doesn't exist, but until then you do not have enough proof.

Now do I believe the universe was created 6000 years ago, no, why because I believe the scientific facts I have looked at.

I think we should agree to disagree on this.

Again, you don't understand science -- you cannot prove a negative. You have to prove that something exists (God) before science accepts it.

He also doesn't get that science restricts itself to the physical universe we live in. The quantifiable. They don't get that the existence or non-existence of God is not something that science can even begin to attempt to answer. God is supposed to exist outside our physical universe and, currently, beyond eh scope of science. This is why Christianity is a religion. they believe in the existence of their God 100% based on faith.

You do realize, don’t you, that even if you could prove that all science was a hoax and none of it was true that this would still not prove any of the religious explanations for anything.

To prove something you need to collect evidence supporting it, not just knock down alternate explanations.

...So maybe some day you can prove G-d doesn't exist, but until then you do not have enough proof....

The goal of science is not to disprove God.

The goal of science is to explain the world around us. To formulate a set of theories which allow us to build cool stuff like airplanes and computers. I realize that some of the religious are threatened by this as in some cases the way things work in real life is counter to how they were described in their holy books. Science isn’t against religion.. it doesn’t even care about religion. Science is busy in its lab making cool stuff and only has to go head to head with religion when religious groups try to bend science to conform to their beliefs.

sirloxelroy wrote:

I think we should agree to disagree on this.

Science would like nothing better. Religious people believe whatever they want and let science do its work without interference.

They don't need a lab because they don't engage in any kind of ID-based experiments. Instead all they do is funnel money into their own bank accounts and into all kinds of press releases, blog posts, books, model legislation bills, and other lobbying efforts. They are a PR clearinghouse for pseudoscience, not an actual research body. If they actually DID do any research then there probably would have been less of them "spouting all sorts of bad science," as the article put it. The links in the article also detail why the content coming out of Gauger's mouth was wrong, regardless of the setting. You don't need a lab to misunderstand biology like that. In fact, having a lab just might be counterproductive! So the greenscreen is just one deceptive part of the whole deceptive enterprise highlighted by the Ars piece.

I don't see how a story can't be "political." Life is inherently political. There will be things you read that you either agree with or disagree with, and often times for political reasons. Politics is life and life is political, no one lives in a bubble where their opinions are formed shielded from the culture around them.

He also doesn't get that science restricts itself to the physical universe we live in. The quantifiable. They don't get that the existence or non-existence of God is not something that science can even begin to attempt to answer. God is supposed to exist outside our physical universe and, currently, beyond eh scope of science. This is why Christianity is a religion. they believe in the existence of their God 100% based on faith.

Without getting into major discussion, I find it very strange that many of the comments supporting science but more directly falsifying religions often conclude with the commentator making an outright statement about "religions" and the religious. Quite certainly, they claim to follow the scientific method to a T, but then they go and state their own observation or "theory" as if it were a fact, thereby voiding any regard to their earlier statements.

No one answered your come-on the first time. No one will the 2nd. Please stop.

Why? does that fact annoys you? bothers you? offends you?

Annoy, sure. But not for the reasons you are fishing for. If you want to know why, it is because you aren't adding anything substantive to the debate by asking a loaded question. Rephrase it (and explain more clearly) what you are trying to say. Otherwise, you are spoiling for a fight.

Unless you are promoting religion, you are AGAINST IT. Welcome to modern christian martyrdom.

"Religion" is not a single unified voice. Therefore it is easy to construct strawmen and parody. Some religious people are very easy (and fun) to make fun of. Others are more reasonable. Your statement I quoted may or may not be true with different religious people.

In any case, reason might win them, or some of them over. Or at the very least make them rethink. Making fun of them does not. In fact it may simply solidify their resolve to hold to their position. Name calling is least likely to cause anyone to reconsider their views.

Although I'm quoting you, I'm not directing that just at you. Some religious people have some degree of open mindedness. Facts are not controversial.

And then on the other hand, there are those who will never be convinced no matter what the evidence.

I was speaking to a trend in modern western christianity, the misguided belief that they are being persecuted when asked to not force their dogma on others. Not all christians behave this way, that is obvious. The trend though, in my opinion, is undeniable.

For the most part I find Arstechnica's articles that could be antireligious to be written in a neutral-skeptical tone.

However, when the article could be taken to an antireligious rant, the comments usually do degenerate into something that makes me feel - as someone who is spiritual but not religious - somewhat uneasy expressing my opinion.

I was talking to a friend of mine last night who happens to be an atheist. We used to debate politics - truly debate. It was respectfully done. The only time a line was crossed, apologies were exchanged. These debates were done years ago and since then political lines have been redrawn such that my moderate shift to the left in the interim has me categorized as a raving liberal. However, last night as conversation meandered, I said something about those debates that I'm not certain I could ever say to someone here because of the tactics allowed: "Thank you for giving me the room to change."

She isn't someone I know face to face, we know each other through our online names only and we debated on forums and nowhere else. That same room is not given to people on arstechnica and it is not given to religious nor spiritual individuals on sites that assert the validity of scientific theories.

Respecting someone who is wrong is something so difficult that not many people ever master it. Running into someone who held opinions opposite of mine and was willing to respectfully discuss them with me - at times with greater maturity than I had - changed how I thought.

For the most part I find Arstechnica's articles that could be antireligious to be written in a neutral-skeptical tone.

However, when the article could be taken to an antireligious rant, the comments usually do degenerate into something that makes me feel - as someone who is spiritual but not religious - somewhat uneasy expressing my opinion.

I was talking to a friend of mine last night who happens to be an atheist. We used to debate politics - truly debate. It was respectfully done. The only time a line was crossed, apologies were exchanged. These debates were done years ago and since then political lines have been redrawn such that my moderate shift to the left in the interim has me categorized as a raving liberal. However, last night as conversation meandered, I said something about those debates that I'm not certain I could ever say to someone here because of the tactics allowed: "Thank you for giving me the room to change."

She isn't someone I know face to face, we know each other through our online names only and we debated on forums and nowhere else. That same room is not given to people on arstechnica and it is not given to religious nor spiritual individuals on sites that assert the validity of scientific theories.

Respecting someone who is wrong is something so difficult that not many people ever master it. Running into someone who held opinions opposite of mine and was willing to respectfully discuss them with me - at times with greater maturity than I had - changed how I thought.

I believe the article authors get this. I wish the readers did too.

Best post I've seen in a while. Thank you for articulating a point I could not... I think I'm one of those abrasive commenters. :-\

Now do I believe the universe was created 6000 years ago, no, why because I believe the scientific facts I have looked at.

I think we should agree to disagree on this.

It’s hard to agree to disagree on that, because of the many facts that support an older age of the world.

Particle physics don’t even work if the universe is 6,000 years old. Nuclear power and weapons, radiometric dating, radioactive tracers in medicine… they couldn’t exist. But they indisputably do. It’s hard to find a geological observation that doesn’t support an older earth either. You’d have to show why they aren’t relevant.

Agreed, the only controversial, click-bait, and troll articles on Ars are the ones posted under Opposable Thumbs since Ben got upset with life (well before he left). It has just gotten considerably worse since Kyle took over I used to love checking out the Ars opinion on game-related trends or whatnot, but not I come here only for the science, law, and Apple insights.

To be fair, there are several GESC OG's that said the same thing about Ben when he became the head gaming writer on Ars (except they said it got considerably worse and EVERY article was a troll article), and they were very happy to see him go. I hope that Kyle just needs time to acclimate to the new standards that all Arstechnica writers are held up to, but for his non-controversial videogame articles it's also important to keep in mind that what's important to people and how they write about those things is more or less unique.

I also take Kyle's articles with a grain of salt, but a lot of the time I feel like he just does not effectively lay out or argue his position, not that he's taking the wrong stance altogether. If it's something novel, I can then look up articles on that stance from gaming journalists that I have great respect for (anyone who wrote for CGW and at least half of the writers for EGM, and a smattering of other gaming journalists). Gaming articles on Ars have always been a litmus test for topics that may be worth looking up elsewhere, and that was true even when Ben was the gaming writer.

Now do I believe the universe was created 6000 years ago, no, why because I believe the scientific facts I have looked at.

I think we should agree to disagree on this.

It’s hard to agree to disagree on that, because of the many facts that support an older age of the world.

Particle physics don’t even work if the universe is 6,000 years old. Nuclear power and weapons, radiometric dating, radioactive tracers in medicine… they couldn’t exist. But they indisputably do. It’s hard to find a geological observation that doesn’t support an older earth either. You’d have to show why they aren’t relevant.

I've recently discovered Ars Technica and I can say I've read so many articles spanning different topics, from science to security, from videogames to weather, all written from a professional and informed stance (I've also successfully created a home web server by following one of your articles ). And I'm also a Christian, a believer that has forged his convictions by studying my faith and applying that knowledge in my own life. One of the convictions I strive to adhere to, is Truth, as being paramount to my faith, as my Lord said of himself, 'I am Truth'.In following that Truth, one must not avoid studying, examining evidence, and forming unbiased conclusions, because no matter what the outcome is: if done properly, it's True.And in understanding the natural world, we have developed our own study method: Science. From the beginning, it has explained natural phenomena and debunked our misconceptions: No magic in thunder. no flat Earth, no spontaneous creation, and so on. I am thankful of the wonderful tool that is Science, and that in its evolution it has shed rays of light in understanding the natural world.However, it's clear that, as a requirement of itself, Science cannot, must not, be biased or believed in. Conclusions must be examined, results must be questioned, and experiments must be repeated until we arrive to an definite stance on any subject. And still, it's only 'under A and B conditions'. Only then we will guarantee that we'll not keep incorrect data, and only through painstakingly and slowly moving ahead on that road, we'll find what's True.So, if we discuss every issue with a truly open mind, not only will we move further on the road to knowledge and understanding, but we'll really be true among us and to ourselves.

Ken Fisher / Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation.